What I never understand about these threads though is why people get so angry about them.
I'd describe myself as irritated rather than angry! And in my case it's because I care about interpretive methodologies (not just in D&D - primarily in law - but game rules and their interpretation have some close resemblances).
This is a terrible thread
<snip>
And, as always, despite CharOp orthodoxy, exact RAW doesn't matter.
I don't think it's the most edifying thread of all time.
But I think that there is a tendency among some players - and not just theoretical optimisers - to trumpet "RAW" as if they had a sound interpretive methodology that yielded their conclusions, and as if "RAW" called out something markedly different from "RAI". I think that tendeny would benefit from correction by reference to real theories of interpretation that have actually had some real-world stress testing (eg via use in front of, and by members of, superior courts).
I don't deny that there is an interesting difference between (some) textualists and (some) intentionalists, but the notion of RAW vs RAI doesn't correspond to that difference. It's at best a half-baked contrast. For instance, even strict textualists allow that the text has to be read in its entirety, which can then import implicit constraints upon or variations of meaning into otherwise generic terms (eg Justice Scalia's famous opinion that "use of a firearm" meant "use of a firearm
as a weapon).
I don't know what you're tryinh yo say. It has a basis in that's what the rules say.
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.
I understand why a 1st level character casting 9th level spells clearly violates any reasonable interpretation of what the designers intended -- but that isn't an argument that it goes against the RAW.
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.
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.
But once we are bringing this sort of understanding to bear - about how the wording of those two feats is meant to mesh with the broader framework - we cannot also deny the relevance of that understanding to making sense of the text in VS, and in particular its reference to "spells known".
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.
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.
Furthermore, someone upthread mentioned Precocious Spellcaster. Look at all the complex rules text it sets out in granting and then circumscribing the ability to cast a 2nd level spell at 1st level. The existence of this element in the system is another reason to think that the "known spell" requirement of VS should be interprted in a way that limits rather than expands the casting ability of the character.
(It's true that some feats - at least in 4e, and I suspect in 3E too - are deliberately introduced to displace earlier, underpowered options, and the designers tend not to call this out (which is annoying, because it makes interpretation harder). But when it comes to options for 3E casters, this doesn't seem to me to be a relevant consideration!)
Then it's unfortunate, but as they're written they are absolutely compatible.
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.
Being forbidden from taking it is obviously intended as a cost. If you've already traded it away, you can't meet the cost.
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 [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] 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.
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".
Elven Generalist prohibits specialization as a Wizard. The Domain Wizard, however, is an alternate base class, which does not have the ability to specialize. It seems that combining the two is debatable because Domain Wizard, as an alternate base class, may not quality for Elven Generalist.
this is by far the best-supported argument against me here.
<snip>
Sadly, it doesn't work because the domain wizard is a variant WIZARD. The definition of the word "Variant" kinda screws your argument over. The Domain Wizard is still a wizard. It still even has the specialization class feature, even if you can't use 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.
Second, there is the assumption that when DW says "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", the PC nevertheless retains specialisation as a class feature. Whereas it another candidate reading would be that, when the text says that something is received in exchange for giving up the versatility of a particular feature, that feature has been foregone. Again, I don't see any reason for favouring Cyclone_Joker's interpretation.
I'd like some text explicitly proving that any one critical part of this doesn't work.
The text you are looking for is the text of the rules elements. It stands in need of interpretation. At every point at which non-literal interpretation is needed to make your argument work (eg on the "slots" issue), you adopt such an interpretation without analysis or argument. At every point at which the literal words admit, in context, of some sort of constraining interpretation, you reject that interpretatin without analysis or argument.
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.
