Calling out, "systems mastery"

[Savage Wombat]

Already addressed. No points for effort, though, since you're repeating what's already disproved.

Except it wasn't disproved, because you're mistaken.

Except it does.

Except it doesn't. See how easy this is?

You haven't made any attempt to actually support your argument except by saying "that's what the rule says". You support your argument through nothing but assertion. And if that's all you have, assertion - more of us are asserting you are wrong in your interpretation.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Argumentative logic demands that if you're going to say it's already addressed you really need to provide a quote (or at least some citation) back to where it was addressed because obviously someone either missed it or didn't think it was actually addressed properly. Handwaving that sort of thing by saying "I've already addressed that" and nothing else is a laughable tactic politicians use.

That would be true were the thread not immediately here and completely recorded.

Except it wasn't disproved, because you're mistaken.

Except it was because I'm not.

Except it doesn't. See how easy this is?

Yes, I see exactly how easy it is for you to make baseless assertions.

You haven't made any attempt to actually support your argument except by saying "that's what the rule says". You support your argument through nothing but assertion. And if that's all you have, assertion - more of us are asserting you are wrong in your interpretation.

Except no. I have supported my argument with these mythical things known as "facts." I know they're obscure, especially in places like the internet, but they're really neat. You should try them sometime.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Except it was because I'm not.

Except it wasn't, because you are.

Yes, I see exactly how easy it is for you to make baseless assertions.

My assertions are every bit as well-based as yours. Thus the underlying structure of my posts.

Except no. I have supported my argument with these mythical things known as "facts." I know they're obscure, especially in places like the internet, but they're really neat. You should try them sometime.

I'm glad you admit to using mythical facts, but the rest of us in this thread are using the actual rule system in question.

You know, I think ELIZA could post like this. Is this some kind of Turing Test?

 

[N'raac]

"I recommend that you ignore this reference. Your campaign won't be improved if rope trick effects implode when someone carries a bag of holding orportable hole inside. A Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion should likewise prove benign if someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside."

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a

But tossing a Portable Hole in a Bag of Holding should still create a rift to the Astral Plane... I found the Pathfinder fix just fine. But then, my group has never subscribed to "we're invulnerable on accounta we's got a rope trick".

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

I can only speak for myself, and I attribute it to a poor Will save

Because only one person has actually pointed out a mistake?

No, you're wrong.

[Nope - no better from this side.]

Cite: See most posts on this thread other than your own.

So you actually aren't reading the responses then.

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.

True another reason I had not thought of.

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.

If the DM would seriously consider allowing this abomination, you have bigger problems.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

That would be true were the thread not immediately here and completely recorded.

Just because something was recorded does not mean that people have actually seen it in part or in full, much less understood it in part or in full. If you are claiming something, as indeed you are, the onus is always on you to provide the rigorous citations at every turn you are questioned to leave absolutely no doubt that, at the very least, you are willing to put in the effort to show that you always know what you are talking about.

Considering the ease of which it's possible to go back and quote yourself (and others) here, I would think such little effort to give yourself a far stronger footing against your questioners would appeal to you.

 

[delericho]

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

That's exactly what a semicolon does. The reason it's a semicolon there, and not a period, is precisely because those two statements are directly connected.

But in any case, it doesn't matter - I only need the second statement. If the Elf Generalist has given up the ability to specialise, he no longer has the versatility to specialise in an entire school in order to exchange that for the ability to cast with increased power; he cannot take Domain Wizard. Conversely, if he has exchanged that versatility, the Domain Wizard no longer has the ability to specialise, so can't replace it; he cannot become an Elf Generalist.

 

[Ranes]

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.

 

[Cadence]

@Cyclone_Joker

Sidestepping the issue of whether Generalist and Domain both replace the same ability (which seems to have quite a few other people out there on the interwebs who think that they aren't doing that on a slim technicality), how about this:


A Domain Wizard cannot take Generalist Wizardry because by RAW a "Domain Wizard" is not a "Wizard" (see the excerpt below from UA about the Bard and Bardic Sage being merely "very similar" classes). An additional argument/reinforcement is given by the Generalist Wizard only being available to a "standard wizard" by the RAW of RotW. By UA RAW, variants are not "standard class".

From UA

"Each fully detailed variant has entries for one or more of the following topics. If an entry does not appear, use the material for the standard class."

"Wizard Variant: Domain Wizard"

"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."


From RotW

"A substitution level is a level of a given class that you take instead of the level described for the standard class."

"To take an elf wizard substitution level, a character must be an elf about to take her 1st, 3rd, or 5th level of wizard."

"This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard's ability to specialize in a school of magic."

 

[Dandu]

Domain Wizard does.

The text of Domain Wizard says that

A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it. These spells do not count against her two new spells known per wizard level.

Your argument seems to be that the domain wizard automatically adds his domain spells to his list of known spells when he is able to cast a spell of higher level through Versatile Spellcaster. Are you also saying that the spell instantly appears in his spell book as soon as the wizard gains higher level spell slots?

 

[Ranes]

My suspicion is that his argument is just that. CJ might argue - delericho's rebuttal notwithstanding - that he could acquire these spells at first level through other means, even if he did not have them in his spell book at the instant the character was created, though that would make his character something of a paper tiger.

But CJ didn't get to where he is today without disregarding reason.