Precocious Apprentice

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

Out of curiosity, how many DM's actually allow this feat to be used to qualify for PrC's with the 2nd level spell requirement. . .

The requirments for all PrC's I've looked at say: "Ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells and (divine spells, invocations, etc)"

Precocious Apprentice allows one 2nd level spell with the dc 8 check. Techinically it would not allow the prestige classes with the second Level spells requirment.

Are there any PrC's that only say SPELL and not SPELLS.

[jiriku]

Ick, no. No early advancement tricks. RAW is fine on a character optimization board or in a thought exercise, but in-game, I interpret conservatively.

[lsfreak]

I do. The spells argument is incredibly weak. It means that, for example, a wizard hit with Intelligence damage down to anything under 16Int would lose any prestige class that required 3rd level spells because it can now only cast 1. Imagine that - a simple Split Empowered Ray of Stupidity could take a Wizard5/Incantatrix10 down to nothing above 5th level casting.

A much better argument is that it's not a "real" spell slot and that it simply can't be used for prerequisites.

[Starbuck_II]

Out of curiosity, how many DM's actually allow this feat to be used to qualify for PrC's with the 2nd level spell requirement. . .

The requirments for all PrC's I've looked at say: "Ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells and (divine spells, invocations, etc)"

Precocious Apprentice allows one 2nd level spell with the dc 8 check. Techinically it would not allow the prestige classes with the second Level spells requirment.

Are there any PrC's that only say SPELL and not SPELLS.

That same argument means Sorcs can't qualify unpon reaching a even number: they get a spell not spells.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

A much better argument is that it's not a "real" spell slot and that it simply can't be used for prerequisites.

That argument works too and I see what you're saying Starbuck(very good point), Whichever argument used. I'd simply like to here the arguments for Precocious Apprentice and against it in terms of allowing Players to use it to access PrC's

[Zeful]

Out of curiosity, how many DM's actually allow this feat to be used to qualify for PrC's with the 2nd level spell requirement. . .

The requirments for all PrC's I've looked at say: "Ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells and (divine spells, invocations, etc)"

Precocious Apprentice allows one 2nd level spell with the dc 8 check. Techinically it would not allow the prestige classes with the second Level spells requirment.

Are there any PrC's that only say SPELL and not SPELLS.

No, because by the time you get a new spell level you can cast spells from that level. A fourth level Sorcerer can cast 3 2nd level spells per day, and a third level Wizard will (if all spells gained are taken from the highest spell level he can cast) have two spells he can choose from for his spell slot. Both cases spells can be used in plural to refer to a quantity.

Also Isfreak: Apparently the "lose prerequisites and lose abilities" is only limited to feats and PrC advancement (as per Complete Arcane I think), other wise you have Schrodinger's Dragon Disciple (who is both a dragon (and thus doesn't qualify for the PrC), and not a dragon (which does)), once you gain a level of a PrC only level drain can take it away, but ability damage could prevent you from taking another level if you suddenly stop meeting the prerequisites.

[lsfreak]

Depends on how much optimization the group as a whole uses. If it's the one person in the group that optimizes that wants it, don't allow it. If the whole group optimizes, it'll help bring an underpowered class up to par with the rest of the characters (since dual-progression caster PrC's are almost always behind). If no one really optimizes, sure, because the guy taking a dual progression PrC will have trouble keeping up to other classes as-is.

[Starbuck_II]

Schrodinger's Dragon Disciple (who is both a dragon (and thus doesn't qualify for the PrC), and not a dragon (which does)), once you gain a level of a PrC only level drain can take it away, but ability damage could prevent you from taking another level if you suddenly stop meeting the prerequisites.

Wait, we have that DD situation named now? Where did I miss the memo.

[Sinfire Titan]

Ick, no. No early advancement tricks. RAW is fine on a character optimization board or in a thought exercise, but in-game, I interpret conservatively.

Actually, most COers agree that PA alone can't get you the 2nd level spells requirement. There's a few who go around saying that PA+Focused Specialist Wizard can get you 2nd level spells at 1st level (which it does, from a literal reading of the two abilities), myself being one of them.

Most people just try to avoid entering dual-advancement classes, or accept the losses and enter the hard way. Others use classes like Seul Arcanamach and Nar-Demonbinder, or Ur-Priest to qualify.

[Zeful]

Depends on how much optimization the group as a whole uses. If it's the one person in the group that optimizes that wants it, don't allow it. If the whole group optimizes, it'll help bring an underpowered class up to par with the rest of the characters (since dual-progression caster PrC's are almost always behind). If no one really optimizes, sure, because the guy taking a dual progression PrC will have trouble keeping up to other classes as-is.

Probably the best way to do it to be honest, but I'm trying to create a RAW basis for why you should say no if the subject came up and it was overpowered for the group. You know, for the pesky rules-lawyers types who need such a reason.

Wait, we have that DD situation named now? Where did I miss the memo.

That's what I'm calling it. Not sure about everybody else, but I think the term (taken from the Schrodinger's Cat thought exercise for the unaware) fits pretty well.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Comon! If it saves a level of retardedness, shaving off two levels from a base class won't make too much difference. I say bring it on! (after you do take a deep breath and look around. You will see that everything is ok.)

Damn I really should throw up that thread I have been meaning to...

[lsfreak]

Probably the best way to do it to be honest, but I'm trying to create a RAW basis for why you should say no if the subject came up and it was overpowered for the group. You know, for the pesky rules-lawyers types who need such a reason.

Unfortunately, a strict RAW reading is that it's possible to get into spellcasting PrC's early with either PA + Focused Specialist (for wizards), or Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell (for spontaneous casters). PA by itself doesn't function like a normal spell slot and shouldn't allow you to enter early (which I should have clarified earlier but forgot until Sinfire pointed it out).

[The_Werebear]

I don't allow it personally, but I count it as a personal house rule.

As far as I can tell, the trick is perfectly legitimate. I just don't like it.

[RelentlessImp]

I allow it. Most of the DMs I play with would allow it. Then again, I try to play with 'casual optimizers' who don't deliberately break the game if such things are allowed. Having a character who can use a Theurge class *that isn't worthless* or enter a PrC early that requires 2nd level spells isn't that big a deal, honestly.

It's no more a problem than allowing a Wizard to take Arcane Disciple and get access to Miracle through it.

[vartan]

http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=348 Relevant to interests, but not helpful per se.

[Tar Palantir]

Unfortunately, a strict RAW reading is that it's possible to get into spellcasting PrC's early with either PA + Focused Specialist (for wizards), or Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell (for spontaneous casters).

As well as Versatile Spellcaster on Warmage, Dread Necro, or any other spontaneous caster that knows every spell on their class list.

[Darkfire]

On a related note: how would you rule on PA's interaction with Versatile Spellcaster at low level?

Would you:

1. allow the character to cast the known 2nd-level spell without the CL check using either the provided slot and/or expending two 1st-level slots?
2. as 1 but demand a CL check when using the slot provided by PA?
3. as 2 but demand the CL check when expending two 1st-level slots as well?
4. only allow the character to cast the spell using the slot provided by PA?
5. as 4 and still demand the CL check?
6. do something else?

[Sinfire Titan]

On a related note: how would you rule on PA's interaction with Versatile Spellcaster at low level?

Would you:

1. allow the character to cast the known 2nd-level spell without the CL check using either the provided slot and/or expending two 1st-level slots?
2. as 1 but demand a CL check when using the slot provided by PA?
3. as 2 but demand the CL check when expending two 1st-level slots as well?
4. only allow the character to cast the spell using the slot provided by PA?
5. as 4 and still demand the CL check?
6. do something else?

2. Its the RAW solution, as only the PA spell slot causes the CL check.

[Gnaeus]

I don't allow either trick in my games under normal circumstances.

I would only use either one in a game in which a DM really encouraged me to go all out, either because of a highly optimized party or because he was testing rules.

I don't think the other DM I play with allows it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I allow it, as well as pretty much every other early-entry trick. Most PrCs that require 2nd-level spells are either dual-advancement (and thus requiring early-entry to really work) or aren't really worth it if you have to wait (Geomancer and Deep Diviner come to mind immediately--a fancy way to ignore ASF and an earth-node-focused PrC, respectively).

My optimization philosophy is that I don't care how powerful (or not) you are as long as the whole party is on the same power level and no one feels overshadowed. If you have to pull three tricks that "no sane DM" would allow in order to make your character work, that's fine by me...as long as you're not overshadowing the group and they're okay with the build.

[Doc Roc]

Out of curiosity, how many DM's actually allow this feat to be used to qualify for PrC's with the 2nd level spell requirement. . .

The requirments for all PrC's I've looked at say: "Ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells and (divine spells, invocations, etc)"

Precocious Apprentice allows one 2nd level spell with the dc 8 check. Techinically it would not allow the prestige classes with the second Level spells requirment.

Are there any PrC's that only say SPELL and not SPELLS.

It does actually work when combo'd with versatile spellcaster/dragonsblood pool/many-other-things. I'm not interested in going into the specifics, as there are excellent discussions of this on the wizards char-ops boards, though they.... aren't as easy to read as they used to be.

I allow it, and the majority of GMs I know allow it on a case by case basis, depending on what you're building towards. I would, for example, disallow a number of my own heavy-duty builds, but that's not uncommon among devout optimizers like myself. That said, that's a pool of probably 10-15 people off the top of my head who are quite comfortable letting it in their games.

That argument works too and I see what you're saying Starbuck(very good point), Whichever argument used. I'd simply like to here the arguments for Precocious Apprentice and against it in terms of allowing Players to use it to access PrC's

You can use versatile spellcaster to strip it of that requirement.

[shadow_archmagi]

My optimization philosophy is that I don't care how powerful (or not) you are as long as the whole party is on the same power level and no one feels overshadowed. If you have to pull three tricks that "no sane DM" would allow in order to make your character work, that's fine by me...as long as you're not overshadowing the group and they're okay with the build.

There are people who feel any other way about this?

[Doc Roc]

There are people who feel any other way about this?

Not that I've met who had serious optimization chops. But people insist that they do, and that they are the majority, and also that the sky is falling.

[Talya]

The feat is pretty pathetic if you're NOT using it for early entry. It's the only worthwhile reason to take the feat in a game that will last long enough to level up a fair bit.

[Eldariel]

The feat is pretty pathetic if you're NOT using it for early entry. It's the only worthwhile reason to take the feat in a game that will last long enough to level up a fair bit.

Really, I feel early entry balances the feat. It's pretty useful on low levels, but not overwhelming and then its next usefulness is as an early entry tool thus "remaining" useful over the course of the game.

[Stephen_E]

PA is an atrociously badly worded feat. This amkes RAWing it a bit of an headache.
That said, unless you read it in a way that makes little sense to the way anyone (including the anti PA people) read the rest of DnD rules, it does allow you early entry into Mystic Theurge.

If someone complains about the "plural" rule (which is extremly hapzardly applied throughout the rules, you just take a 2nd level Pearl of Power, and hey presto, you can cast two 2nd level spells.

Sinfire: What's a COer?

Stephen E

[The Glyphstone]

Character Optimization-er, I suppose.

[Zeful]

Unfortunately, a strict RAW reading is that it's possible to get into spellcasting PrC's early with either PA + Focused Specialist (for wizards), or Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell (for spontaneous casters). PA by itself doesn't function like a normal spell slot and shouldn't allow you to enter early (which I should have clarified earlier but forgot until Sinfire pointed it out).

I used to think that too, but unfortunately Versatile spellcaster doesn't work that way as spell casting is hardwired as part of the class level progression rather than the ability to use slots. Since the feat doesn't provide spell levels a Warmage can't use it to cast higher level spells than he otherwise could because of the feat.

[DragoonWraith]

I don't DM, but if I did, I think I'd just houserule the entry requirements of the desired PrC to be easier if I didn't think it would be overpowered to enter early, and not allow early entry at all if I did.

Like, I'd make Mystic Theurge require 2nd level spells from one side and 1st level spells from the other. Much more reasonable. It's still a really weak choice.

[FMArthur]

The first priority would be to make it a longer class.