Calling out, "systems mastery"

[Cyclone_Joker]

Depends on who you talk to and what their tolerance for the effects of rules mastery is. Many people in this forum, as I'm sure you've noticed, take at least some part of the stance that if a rule or rules combination leads to an absurd or broken result then at the very least the end result should be dismissed even if it does, strictly-speaking, work. Unless there are big bold letters announcing something is not intended to be playable at any reasonable game table, the assumption is that pretty much all discussions are to be about what can reasonably be played.

I'd have thought something this absurd would go without saying.

What I'm trying to say is that your interpretive methodology - which is an undisciplined and rather wishful mix of literalism and intentionalism - is highly suspect. See the rest of this post for some application of sound interpretive methodologies.

Sorry you think that, but you're wrong.

Here is the relevant text:

Versatile Spellcaster: You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher.

Generalist Wizard: The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day.

Domain Wizard: a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list.​

Versatile Spellcaster needs slots. The text of the other two feats says nothing about slots, it only talks about the possibility of preparing spells (GW), or of "filling" bonus spells (DW). To find slots in those feats requires interpretation - that is, reading their text in light of a broader understanding of how the rules framework works, and how these two feats are intended to mesh with that broader framework. In particular, it requires us to understand that what is prepared (per GW) is a spell in a slot, and that what is filled (per DW) is a spell slot.

Yes, because that's what it is. See, the Wizard entry is kinda nice like that.

The argument needs a stronger claim than that, I think. It needs those higher level spells to count as a spell that is known prior to the upscaling of slots via VS - because VS relies upon the higher level spell being known as a trigger for the upscaling of slots.

>You can cast a higher level spell
>You know the domain spells of that level.

It's really clear. But, as I've mentioned, if that isn't good enough, then use heighten, or use the soul-selling rules in whichever Fiendish Codex it is to add Sanctum Spell on top of it.

Being forbidden from taking it is obviously intended as a cost. If you've already traded it away, you can't meet the cost.

And Candle of Invocation was obviously not meant to lead to Wish loops. Your point?

Or another way of reaching the conclusion would be this: GW forbids specialisation. DW, as a substitute for specialisation, is therefore also a member of the forbidden class. This is seen in the text that @delericho set out in post 84 and elaborated in post 106 - DW is "exchanged" for specialisation, and if GW forbids specialisation it also forbids exchanging specialisation for something else.

That would be cool did the rules support it.

The last of these quoted posts deploys a lot of unargued interpretive assumptions.

First, there is the assumption that the word "wizard" in the DW description refers not just to "standard wizards" but to "variant wizards". What is the basis for that claim, given that - as Cadence shows - at other places in the same text (UA) class names are expressly used to refer to standard classes in contrast to variants on those classes? An interpretive decision needs to be made here, and I don't see any reason for favouring Cyclone_Joker's interpretation.

Again, I don't see any reason for favouring Cyclone_Joker's interpretation.

Not my problem. The "in exchange, blah blah blah" is not a rules statement. The inability to specialize is. They are two separate statements.

Appeals to "RAW" do no work here, because simply reiterating the text doesn't, on its own, give us a reason to adopt one rather than another candidate interpretation.

Except when one(Mine) does work and others(Yours) don't.

I'm cool if you don't like it, I personally think it's about as inelegant as early 9s get, but that's the cost of wizard 9s at level 1 I guess, and it doesn't change the fact that it works. The only cases that have been made involve making claims that aren't supported, involve rearranging sentences, or flagrantly disregarding other rules in poorly-made, blatantly false appeals to RAW. None of those fly with me.

 

[N'raac]

Quite so and succinctly put, if you don't mind someone who allegedly doesn't realise he hasn't been paying attention and is only trolling saying so.

Given the quality of the other allegations from that poster, I doubt anyone of note will mind.

The spells I'd use are Adept Spirit(Magic of Incarnum, +1 Insight bonus to Caster Level), Suffer the Flesh(some con damage for a boost to CL, up to +5, Magic of Eberron), Spell Enhancer(SpC, +2 on a specific spell), and Mystic Surge(PHBII, +1 on a specific spell). As I said, I can't think of any others off the top of my head that stack with all of these.

First one's a 3rd level W/S spell. Second one is L2, and is restricted to caster level as the increase, 5 maximum (10 CON damage is a lot, too). The Spell Enhancer I find in an online search is Magic of Faerun (also appears in SpC) and enhances save DC. It is a free action so it can affect the spell cast that round, and lasts 1 round, so cannot last through casting Contingency. Level 4. Mystic Surge, also level four, enhances DC by 2 and CL by 1, but also lasts one round. Even if the last two worked, they can't work on the same spell as each affects the next spell you cast.

Only the first one specifies the type of bonus, as an insight bonus.

To the question of whether Domain Wizard is its own class, I note:

Multiclassing And Variant Classes

Multiclassing between variants of the same class is a tricky subject. In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk fighting styles), the easiest solution is simply to bar multiclassing between different versions of the same class (just as a character can't multiclass between different versions of specialist wizards). For variants that are wholly separate from the character class—such as the bardic sage or the urban ranger—multiclassing, even into multiple variants of the same class, is probably okay. Identical class features should stack if gained from multiple versions of the same class (except for spellcasting, which is always separate).

In any case, only the first version of a favored class is treated as favored; a halfling rogue/wizard who later begins gaining levels in the wilderness rogue variant class can't treat both the rogue and wilderness rogue classes as favored, only the class gained first (in this case, rogue). Under no circumstances does spellcasting ability from multiple classes (even variants of the same class) stack. A character with levels of bard and levels of bardic sage has two separate caster levels and two separate sets of spells per day, even though the classes are very similar.

Domain wizard isn't specified as one or the other. The Bardic Sage is specified as a "Variant", so that label does not mean Domain Wizards are also Wizards. The Barbarian and Monk are presented as a bunch of different options to diversify the class, as is the Paladin. The Barbarian has a totem which provides the standard Barbarian suite. The Monk "may take" a style, so if not they keep the standard. The Paladins are examples of alternate alignment Paladins.

I'd say those three are the only "Same Class/Many Paths" offerings, making the Domain Wizard "not a wizard", but this is clearly a matter of interpretation.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

So, scrolls. The wizard, any wizard, can use scrolls and cast higher level spells as long as they have the requiring intelligence. Does that qualify them to trigger this ascending system?
If not, why not?

...

Show me in the text of the scroll rules where it says a scroll is casting a spell, or that scrolls give you slots.

I am truly confused. And even though plenty of other have proved (perhaps unsuccessfully) that you are wrong I haven't seen AT ALL why you are right outside saying "these 3 (or 4 counting heighten spell) feats/features would make it work" without explaining the parts and how they merge together to make it work. A leads to B leads to C - just once would be helpful. You have said only A and B and C leads to win, which is not the same.

Okay, I'll try again.
Versatile Spellcaster makes you able to cast the next level of spell and raises your highest spell level.
That gives you a Elven Wizard slot.
Domain Wizard piggybacks off that giving you a second slot(And possibly bonus spells, but that's an argument for another day).
Lather, rinse, repeat.
That clearer? I'm like majorly sleep deprived, so I apologize if this looks like a garbled mess.
EDIT:

First one's a 3rd level W/S spell. Second one is L2, and is restricted to caster level as the increase, 5 maximum (10 CON damage is a lot, too). The Spell Enhancer I find in an online search is Magic of Faerun (also appears in SpC) and enhances save DC. It is a free action so it can affect the spell cast that round, and lasts 1 round, so cannot last through casting Contingency. Level 4. Mystic Surge, also level four, enhances DC by 2 and CL by 1, but also lasts one round. Even if the last two worked,

They do, in fact, work.

they can't work on the same spell as each affects the next spell you cast.

Contingency.

Only the first one specifies the type of bonus, as an insight bonus.

Yes, but the only other CL boosting spells I can think of also give Insight bonuses.

Domain wizard isn't specified as one or the other. The Bardic Sage is specified as a "Variant", so that label does not mean Domain Wizards are also Wizards.

Actually, it's explicitly called a Wizard variant.

 

[N'raac]

Depends on who you talk to and what their tolerance for the effects of rules mastery is. Many people in this forum, as I'm sure you've noticed, take at least some part of the stance that if a rule or rules combination leads to an absurd or broken result then at the very least the end result should be dismissed even if it does, strictly-speaking, work. Unless there are big bold letters announcing something is not intended to be playable at any reasonable game table, the assumption is that pretty much all discussions are to be about what can reasonably be played. There is also the issue of tone when introducing such a combination since starting off on the wrong foot can make others hostile in general and thus less willing to take what is being said as anything worth more than sneering at.

I'd have thought something this absurd would go without saying.

I'd be more inclined to credit that thought if you had not presented this as your build that shows wizards are all-powerful and any concern that Tumbling is overpowered is therefore completely misplaced. I would have thought a build designed to show us that the concern over a skill which is actually intended for, and used, in real play is misplaced would present a build actually intended for use in real play.

BTW, your defense of your interpretation sure adds a lot of words to the RAW, which you have been telling the rest of us should never, ever be done.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

I'd be more inclined to credit that thought if you had not presented this as your build that shows wizards are all-powerful and any concern that Tumbling is overpowered is therefore completely misplaced. I would have thought a build designed to show us that the concern over a skill which is actually intended for, and used, in real play is misplaced would present a build actually intended for use in real play.

No, I brought it out in response to the absurd idea that every single wizard always prepares the same set of spells.

BTW, your defense of your interpretation sure adds a lot of words to the RAW, which you have been telling the rest of us should never, ever be done.

...

You're joking, right?

 

[Greenfield]

Might I ask a question (since practically everyone in this thread knows the rules better than I do)?

How do you define what spells a caster "Knows"? Spontaneous casters "know" a certain repertoir of spells, usually a limited subset of everything available to their class. Prepared casters "know" the spells they prepare, and "forget" the spells once they cast them.

If I get someone else to copy a spell into my book, do I "know" that spell? If my books get burned, does that mean that I don't "know" those spells any more?

IRL, I own a number of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. And, sadly, I own some technical works that I don't fully understand yet. Does mere ownership of those books qualify as "knowing" what's it them?

I think you can see where this is going: Sorcerers, Bards etc have a certain list of "spells known" (and that is exactly the term the rules use to describe them.) Clerics and Druids have a limited range of spells they can spontaneously cast. Those who prepare from spell books are another animal. I'd suggest that you definitely "know" the spells you have prepared. To "know" a spell in your books but not in your head is questionable, and at a minimum either has to be one copied in there by you, or one that you could have copied. Note that to "be able to copy" a spell into your book, you need a source, such as another book, a scroll, etc., you to make a Spellcraft check based on the spell level, *AND* it has to be a spell of a level you can cast.

The special "spontaneous cast" ability from the Elven Generalist says you can cast "any spell you know". One could argue that this should be limited to spells you currently have prepared. Generously, one could argue that it could/should include any spell you have in your books. More generously, one might include spells that aren't in your book, but which you have proven yourslelf capable of casting through the successful use of a Scroll (including the Spellcraft and caster level checks needed). Very generously, one might go so far as to argue for any spell you could have copied into your book (i.e. level appropriate and you can make the Spellcraft check, even if you haven't actually made it), presuming you have reasonable knowledge of it.

By no sane interpretation of any of the rules do you "know" a spell that isn't in your books, is beyond your level, you've never cast from an item like a Scroll, and which you can't understand. Allowing such a thing goes well beyond any definition of "generous" and into "giving the shop away".

So even if you somehow gain a slot for a domain spell that's beyond your level, it didn't just miraculously appear in your spell book, ready to be prepared (and yes Domain spells still need to be prepared.). You didn't just abruptly gain Spellcraft ranks to comprehend it, nor the components needed to cast it.

That's just my take, and I am admittedly less rules knowledgable than many here. But the term "spells known" seems to be defined only in terms of classes with limited spell scope, and defining it as "anything the player has ever heard of" is, IMHO, purest BS.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Might I ask a question (since practically everyone in this thread knows the rules better than I do)?

How do you define what spells a caster "Knows"? Spontaneous casters "know" a certain repertoir of spells, usually a limited subset of everything available to their class. Prepared casters "know" the spells they prepare, and "forget" the spells once they cast them.

A wizard knows every spell in their spellbook. And the domain spells from Domain Wizard.

 

[Greenfield]

Where in RAW does it say this?

If the books are burned, do they not "know" them any more?

If spells are written by someone else, does the caster "know" them? Even if they can't make the Spellcraft roll to understand them?

And since the trick used for the 1-9 trick requires that it be a spell the caster "knows", and you don't "know" any spells above your top casting level (you can't copy them into your book, even if you can make the Spellcraft check), how do you take the first step?

I mean, I understand that as soon as you can burn two first level slots to get a second, you "know" a domain spell of 2nd level, but you need to know a 2nd level spell before you can gain that second level slot. If you don't meet that prerequisite (knowing a 2nd level spell), you can't gain the slot that grants you Domain knowledge. You can't call the Domain spell a "known" spell, since you don't know it yet.

So how do you do that?

Also, as I understand it, the trick of combining two slots to make another, a level higher, is a full round action. And it results in the immediate casting of that higher level spell. (It allows you to *cast* the higher level spell, not prepare and save for later, I believe.) So when do you have another full round action, in that same round, to do it again to gain a 3rd? And how do you get yet another full round action to combine two thirds into a fourth, during that same round? (Rinse, repeat up to 9).

This trick requires spell knowledge to be available before it's gained, and 8 full round actions to be used all in a single round. All built, of course, on a rules technicality so thin as to be nonexistent.

Other than that, and my general opposition to munchkinism, I see nothing wrong with it. (Okay, I lied, there's a lot more wrong, but this seems like enough for the moment.)

 

[Dandu]

And 9th level spells are automatically entered into the 1st level domain wizard's spellbook if he has Versatile Spellcaster, Elven Generalist, and spontaneous spellcasting?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

And 9th level spells are automatically entered into the 1st level domain wizard's spellbook if he has Versatile Spellcaster, Elven Generalist, and spontaneous spellcasting?

Pretty much. Well, A 9th level spell, anyways.