Calling out, "systems mastery"

[Ranes]

I deleted my post when I saw what I'd done. Serves me right for posting here instead of concentrating on working. Mea culpa.

 

[delericho]

Why do people keep arguing with the guy who just says "no, you're wrong" every time you point out his mistakes?

So you actually aren't reading the responses then...

You see how easy it is?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

So you actually aren't reading the responses then.

No, I'm reading them. They are, with very few exceptions, wrong and indicative of a lack of understanding of the rules.

Your entire proposal boils down to an interpretation that says that, by analogy, if I give a 1st level evocation specialist a Ring of Spell Storing with Cone of Cold in it, he immediately gains the ability to prepare an additional 5th level evocation spell.

Oh, false analogy. I was expecting to run into something this blatantly wrong and fallacious by page five.

I'm sorry if you think your interpretation is the only "correct" way of interpreting the rules, but I'm going to have to go with "self-evidently wrong" here.

Then you're wrong.

Versatile Spellcaster does not give you additional spells from any other source than the slot you combined. You're just misinterpreting it.

Then you've obviously not read a single one of my posts.

Of course Versatile Spellcaster doesn't give you new spells. Elven Wizard and Domain Wizard do.

 

[Dandu]

Problematic class for many reasons, including a rather expensive feat cost.

It requires Arcane Preparation, Co-operative Metamagic, and any one metamagic feat. The prestige class then gives back two metamagic feats, so there is no net loss - assuming you wanted a sorcerer with lots of metamagic feats.

That level of skill cost on a Sorcerer? Also, the expanded list really isn't much to write home about.

I would respectfully disagree.

Dude, you still have to blow spells known on all the spells added via Rainbow Servant.

Ah, my mistake.

I prefer the Pathfinder structure for defining the rules, rather than leaving it in the GM's interpretation, but clearly it is not expected that a haversack (or any other extradimensional space) can safely be brought into a rope trick.

Portable holes and Bags of Holding have a defined interaction. No such interaction exists with other nondimensional (or extradimensional) space in core, so what "hazardous" means here is vague. Perhaps bringing a Handy Haversack into Rope Trick just gives you prostate cancer.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You're just demonstrating my point again.

Of course Versatile Spellcaster doesn't give you new spells. Elven Wizard and Domain Wizard do.

You are using Versatile Spellcaster as the "trigger" to get the spells from these other sources (which are, as others pointed out, exclusive of each other) - and Versatile Spellcaster does not trigger those effects. Sorry. You do not have a 2nd level spell slot, so you don't get bonus 2nd level spell slots from your other class features.

Here, let's save you some typing.

Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is!

Mr. Vibrating: It is not.

 

[tomBitonti]

Okay, you need four things:

- Versatile Spellcaster. This allows you to trade two slots of the same level to cast one spell already known of the next higher level.

Bold text added by me.

As noted above, the key is what spells a wizard is considered to know.

Pathfinder answers the question with: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pfbm?Wizard-and-spells-known

If we go with "has in their spellbook" as the definition of a known spell for a wizard, and if a wizard can write into their spellbook spells which are above their current level, then (as I read it) the trick does work.

If a wizard knows only those spells which they can prepare, regardless of what they have in their spellbook, then the trick doesn't work.

I don't see the limit of one application per day of versatile spellcaster breaking the trick, since the other abilities are conditional on being able to cast a spell of a given level, not on actually casting the spell.

This does require what seems to be a strong bit of bodging, since "known" is undefined for wizards, despite the pathfinder reference. Wizards don't have known spells, they have recorded and prepared spells.

That would make Versatile Spellcaster unusable by wizards. I don't have a problem with house ruling that a wizard can take an equivalent feat to use two slots of a particular level prepare a spell one level higher, with the restriction that they must already be able to prepare the higher level spell.

That is, when applying versatile spellcaster to a wizard, a consistent conversion must be made between the mechanics for spontaneous casters and non-spontaneous casters.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dandu]

More specifically,

[h=2]Versatile Spellcaster[/h]( Races of the Dragon, p. 101)

[General]

You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.
[h=4]Prerequisite[/h]Ability to spontaneously cast spells,
[h=4]Benefit[/h]
You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

You use your lower level slots to cast a spell one level higher. You do not gain higher level spell slots. You seem to cast a higher level spell through use of your lower level slots.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

It requires Arcane Preparation, Co-operative Metamagic, and any one metamagic feat. The prestige class then gives back two metamagic feats, so there is no net loss - assuming you wanted a sorcerer with lots of metamagic feats.

Touche, the mere thought of actually wasting feats on Arcane Preparation and Cooperative Metamagic brought on a knee-jerk reaction, although the plot-hook/screw-me-over-DM class feature always bugs me.

You're just demonstrating my point again.

You are using Versatile Spellcaster as the "trigger" to get the spells from these other sources (which are, as others pointed out, exclusive of each other) - and Versatile Spellcaster does not trigger those effects. Sorry. You do not have a 2nd level spell slot, so you don't get bonus 2nd level spell slots from your other class features.

More specifically,


You use your lower level slots to cast a spell one level higher. You do not gain higher level spell slots. You seem to cast a higher level spell through use of your lower level slots.

Since it seems the two of you still don't get it, allow me to make it as clear as possible: Versatile Spellcaster doesn't give you any slots. It does, however, enable Elven Wizard to jump up, which leads to Domain Wizard moving up, which allows the loop to continue.

Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the two features are not mutually exclusive. There is literally no text that could possibly lead to the conclusion. One replaces Specialization, the other just doesn't allow you to take it. The second is not a replacement, and you are not trading a class feature twice.

 

[Ragmon]

Nope. 9th level spells.

Shhhs... just say that I'm right and save your self some face, that way you can say everyone miss read your posts... XD

But on a serious note, then your wrong.

Oh and another thing, you mentioned something along the lines of "you read it wrong" to some other poster. I do believe that no DM would allow this anyway AND I don't think the developers intended 9th level spells on 1st level, so your the one reading it incorrectly. (I know you don't like the pun-pun reference but that at least has a solid support of math under itself, while your argument is simply "I chose to read it this way".

But this is all irrelevant, because of our human nature we will not admit that we are wrong, so I can predict that anything anyone say to you about this topic you will not admit that you are wrong, even if you clearly are and there is evidence and so on, not even the min/max board doesn't talk about this build.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Shhhs... just say that I'm right and save your self some face, that way you can say everyone miss read your posts... XD

But on a serious note, then your wrong.

Funny, the actual text disagrees with you.

Oh and another thing, you mentioned something along the lines of "you read it wrong" to some other poster. I do believe that no DM would allow this anyway AND I don't think the developers intended 9th level spells on 1st level,

You make it sound like either one of those things matter in a discussion such as this.

so your the one reading it incorrectly.

Making irrelevant statements is "proof" now? Cool. Coca-Cola is infinitely superior to Pepsi, so you're wrong.

(I know you don't like the pun-pun reference but that at least has a solid support of math under itself, while your argument is simply "I chose to read it this way".

No, it's "That's what the rules say."

But this is all irrelevant, because of our human nature we will not admit that we are wrong, so I can predict that anything anyone say to you about this topic you will not admit that you are wrong, even if you clearly are and there is evidence and so on, not even the min/max board doesn't talk about this build.

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!"