Calling out, "systems mastery"

[Ragmon]

Funny, the actual text disagrees with you.
You make it sound like either one of those things matter in a discussion such as this. Making irrelevant statements is "proof" now? Cool. Coca-Cola is infinitely superior to Pepsi, so you're wrong.
No, it's "That's what the rules say."
You are incorrect. In fact, although this is hardly relevant, I have admitted that I made an error in a previous post. I am a reasonable person. If someone actually had a point. I'd be all ears. Sadly, all of the opposing arguments have boiled down to "I don't like it! Also, PUN-PUN!"

Proof is all over this thread, just did not bother to double post 'em.

Yes it matters cause its all about how you read the texts, then it boils down to a simple vote if its correct or not, why cause its all subjective. There is where the majority wins, thus I'm just bringing up the DM who wouldn't allow such shenanigans.

Yea the world "rules" would have been better then "math" in the sentence.

If your a reasonable person, then why don't you just leave the discussion be, you can see that its just going around in circles.

In the end it doesn't matter, your build only exists in a Schrödinger's box, if I read it this way it works, if I read it the other way it doesn't, it all relies on a subjective opinion. So we will never really know until Wotc guys tell us how it would work.

OH YEA, why did I forget this, if you really want to discuss these kind of things, check out the Min/Max Board those guys are pros when it comes to game mechanics and rules, EN-World IMO has more of the "Fluff" people then the "Crunch" kind of people.

Gonna wait for a reply then I'm unsub-ing from this thread, its going nowhere.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Proof is all over this thread, just did not bother to double post 'em.

Only if by "proof" you mean "flatly wrong statements intermixed with insults."

Yes it matters cause its all about how you read the texts, then it boils down to a simple vote if its correct or not, why cause its all subjective.

No it isn't. The rules say what the rules say.

There is where the majority wins, thus I'm just bringing up the DM who wouldn't allow such shenanigans.

So? A normal DM wouldn't allow a Nasty Gentleman in their game. That doesn't change the fact that it works.

If your a reasonable person, then why don't you just leave the discussion be, you can see that its just going around in circles.

Because I'm right.
[quotw]In the end it doesn't matter, your build only exists in a Schrödinger's box, if I read it this way it works, if I read it the other way it doesn't, it all relies on a subjective opinion. So we will never really know until Wotc guys tell us how it would work.[/quote]No it doesn't.

OH YEA, why did I forget this, if you really want to discuss these kind of things, check out the Min/Max Board those guys are pros when it comes to game mechanics and rules, EN-World IMO has more of the "Fluff" people then the "Crunch" kind of people.

Been there. They're boring and frequently wrong, plus all the OTTers are here.

Seriously, SorO is a good example of the problem with the board. For some reason he's taken seriously, despite having problems with rules that are not just complex combos like this, but clear and based solely on definitions, such as getting Spellcasting via Shapechange. In other words, despite them getting a good rep, and having a few gems, they were honestly inferior to the WotC optimization board. At least, last time I hung out at MinMax.

 

[Ranes]

The main problem with the supposed legitimacy of CJ's build, as other have implied if not explicitly stated is this: it's not a build you can demand to play at any table, because it requires the DM to subscribe to using variant rules. And variant rules are just that. They're not core. Even books of rules such as Unearthed Arcana explicitly warn DMs to consider carefully the ramifications of allowing any of them at their table.

So you're not going to get it past most DMs, if they're aware of what you believe the build entitles you to do with it (and if they're not aware of that and you don't make them aware of it, I put it to you that you have more interest in being trouble for others than in participating in a game of cooperative play).

 

[delericho]

Actually...

Races of the Wild p157:

Generalist Wizardry:... This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s ability to specialize in a school of magic.

Unearthed Arcana p.57:

Domain Wizard: ... A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power.

(Emphasis mine.)

If you've replaced it, you can't exchange it. Conversely, if you've exchanged it, you can't then replace it. Because: English.

So no, you can't have both. Also, it's important to check the full text.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

The main problem with the supposed legitimacy of CJ's build, as other have implied if not explicitly stated is this: it's not a build you can demand to play at any table, because it requires the DM to subscribe to using variant rules.

First off, why does that matter? That has nothing to do with the mechanics.

Second, seriously, if the only thing stopping you from pulling this abomination out is the DM saying "no," you've got problems.
EDIT:

Actually...
...
Unearthed Arcana p.57:

Domain Wizard: ... A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power.

Actually, you missed the semicolon. The two statements there are not directly connected like that.

That one was probably the best-done argument so far, though, even if it doesn't work.

 

[TwoSix]

This is a terrible thread, that appears to exist only to try to take [MENTION=6750006]Cyclone_Joker[/MENTION] down a peg. This is, of course, impossible, as Cyclone_Joker has far too much "broishness" to actually allow himself to be taken down.

And, as always, despite CharOp orthodoxy, exact RAW doesn't matter. The general consensus of the community where the game is being discussed is what matters, and there is no gaming community where the DM will let a player have 9th level spells at 1st level.

 

[Ranes]

First off, why does that matter? That has nothing to do with the mechanics.

The fact that the mechanics are variants that require DM approval to be used matters because that approval is relevant for any claim of legitimacy.

Second, seriously, if the only thing stopping you from pulling this abomination out is the DM saying "no," you've got problems.

Exactly. Read what you've written again. I agree. You've got problems.

 

[tomBitonti]

This is a terrible thread, that appears to exist only to try to take [MENTION=6750006]Cyclone_Joker[/MENTION] down a peg. This is, of course, impossible, as Cyclone_Joker has far too much "broishness" to actually allow himself to be taken down.

And, as always, despite CharOp orthodoxy, exact RAW doesn't matter. The general consensus of the community where the game is being discussed is what matters, and there is no gaming community where the DM will let a player have 9th level spells at 1st level.

Let's set aside the clever cascade to 9'th level.

Should a player be allowed to cast a 2'nd level spell at first level (or a 3'rd level spell at 3'rd level)?

Should a 1'st level wizard be allowed to prepare Scorching Ray at a cost of two first level slots? Should a 3'rd level wizard be allowed to prepare Fireball at a cost of two second level slots?

(We don't need to demonstrate that the stronger application is a problem if a weaker, simpler, application is already a problem. If a Donkey breaks a bridge, we don't need to show that that an Elephant will.)

Thx!

TomB

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Actually, wizards can get a 2nd level spell at 1st level with only one feat: Precocious Apprentice.

 

[Ragmon]

Only if by "proof" you mean "flatly wrong statements intermixed with insults."
No it isn't. The rules say what the rules say.
So? A normal DM wouldn't allow a Nasty Gentleman in their game. That doesn't change the fact that it works.
Because I'm right.
[quotw]In the end it doesn't matter, your build only exists in a Schrödinger's box, if I read it this way it works, if I read it the other way it doesn't, it all relies on a subjective opinion. So we will never really know until Wotc guys tell us how it would work.

No it doesn't.
Been there. They're boring and frequently wrong, plus all the OTTers are here.

Seriously, SorO is a good example of the problem with the board. For some reason he's taken seriously, despite having problems with rules that are not just complex combos like this, but clear and based solely on definitions, such as getting Spellcasting via Shapechange. In other words, despite them getting a good rep, and having a few gems, they were honestly inferior to the WotC optimization board. At least, last time I hung out at MinMax.[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------

Look, just get over the fact that your wrong, there are posts here that clearly prove that.

Now if you know your right, why do you even bother? Nothing you or anyone will say will change your mind as I see it. So I ask again, why even bother?

Side comment: Bah, the fact that you created an EN-world account on the 10th of September and that they kicked you from MMB explains a lot to me.

Peace the f*** out. Have a nice life.