Early Ultimate Magus, Yes?
- Thread starter interwyrm
- Start date
From 2-11 you are a half spell level behind, from 12-18 you are a full spell level behind. at 20th you are down a 7th level spell an 8th level spell and 2 9th level spells from a straight wizard. Not an insurmountable sacrifice, but a sacrifice nonetheless.
Besides, your build uses practiced spellcaster, and Dr. Awkward was arguing that ultimate magus is powerful without practiced spell caster and broken with.
Besides, your build uses practiced spellcaster, and Dr. Awkward was arguing that ultimate magus is powerful without practiced spell caster and broken with.
I would argue strongly that rules, like Laws in American Jurisprudence are to be adjudicated by more than logic.
The laws' intent and review of consequences, (while possibly entirely logical,) contrary to that intent, or to core principals generally render a law null and void from the judiciary.
We know the designers intent. The feat is not intended to allow early access to PrC, and is intended to allow a spellcaster,(a Wizard or Sorcerer from the leading text for the optional feats), to cast a single 2 level spell early.
Logically a 20th level Sorcerer with a CHA of 11 is capable of casting 9th level spells, simply because the class gives them the spell slots....
Technically, logically, a Bard with a CHA of 15 could pick up this feat and gain access to second level spell before 4th level. Logically this feat would allow a 1st level Bard to cast 2nd level spells before he or she could cast 1st level spells.
Hmm....methinks if there was a Supreme Court of D&D rules this feat might be declared unconstitutional for violating core principals.
If you look even further because of the special conditions of the feat, further more egregious 'logical' implications are possible.
A Duskblade with an Int of 15 could take this feat at 1st level and chose the spell Wraithstrike, and make a logical case to be able to cast it. The Feat says:
"Chose one 2nd level spell from a school of magic you have access to. You gain an Extra 2nd-level spell slot that MUST be used initially to cast ONLY the chosen spell". (emphasis added).
No reference to the spell being on your spell list, and following that line, the feat gives the mechanic for how to be able to cast that spell, which logically one could assume, being self contained and easily understood, supersedes the normal rule prohibition against being able to cast spells not on your spell list.
This is all very logical, and within the written rules of the text....and I think most would agree, probably Unconstitutional in the Supreme Court of D&D.
Which brings me back to my original position...the feat is written and intended to create a special exception for a character to cast a single 2nd level spell early, and does not account for any implications of that.
It is a limited exception, not entitled to the rights and obligations of 2nd level spell slots.
The laws' intent and review of consequences, (while possibly entirely logical,) contrary to that intent, or to core principals generally render a law null and void from the judiciary.
We know the designers intent. The feat is not intended to allow early access to PrC, and is intended to allow a spellcaster,(a Wizard or Sorcerer from the leading text for the optional feats), to cast a single 2 level spell early.
Logically a 20th level Sorcerer with a CHA of 11 is capable of casting 9th level spells, simply because the class gives them the spell slots....
Technically, logically, a Bard with a CHA of 15 could pick up this feat and gain access to second level spell before 4th level. Logically this feat would allow a 1st level Bard to cast 2nd level spells before he or she could cast 1st level spells.
Hmm....methinks if there was a Supreme Court of D&D rules this feat might be declared unconstitutional for violating core principals.
If you look even further because of the special conditions of the feat, further more egregious 'logical' implications are possible.
A Duskblade with an Int of 15 could take this feat at 1st level and chose the spell Wraithstrike, and make a logical case to be able to cast it. The Feat says:
"Chose one 2nd level spell from a school of magic you have access to. You gain an Extra 2nd-level spell slot that MUST be used initially to cast ONLY the chosen spell". (emphasis added).
No reference to the spell being on your spell list, and following that line, the feat gives the mechanic for how to be able to cast that spell, which logically one could assume, being self contained and easily understood, supersedes the normal rule prohibition against being able to cast spells not on your spell list.
This is all very logical, and within the written rules of the text....and I think most would agree, probably Unconstitutional in the Supreme Court of D&D.
Which brings me back to my original position...the feat is written and intended to create a special exception for a character to cast a single 2nd level spell early, and does not account for any implications of that.
It is a limited exception, not entitled to the rights and obligations of 2nd level spell slots.
Last edited:
EyeontheMountain
First Post
Sigh, when are people going to stop being such rulemonkeys? Practiced spellcaster clearly is only intended to boost your spell's effects when casting, to offset penalties when multiclassing. Simple and clear. Sure they could have worded it better, but that is no excuse to try to break the game in a hundred different ways, or argue endlessly that this orthat odd combination is 'RAW'. Should be 'RAM' --> Rules as Mangled
RigaMortus2
First Post
satori01 said:
Sure, he could do this. But once he gains access to 2nd level spells via his class, he will lose Wraithstrike. So it's not worth it IMHO.
Using Practiced spellcaster to concentrate spellcasting ability in Ultimate Magus is neither game breaking nor anything other than offsetting penalties when multiclassing.EyeontheMountain said:
Open up your copy of Complete Mage and look at the sample Ultimate Magus, imagine you have been assigned her as a pre-gen or are using her as an encounter. Is there any way she measures up as a ninth level character? at all?
EyeontheMountain said:
Dunno if you are aware, but this is the rules forum, not the "I think the designers didnt intend this, but totally forgot about all the feats in Complete Arcane, which is the total precursor book to this one" forum. I have not been to this other forum, but here in the rules forum, using legitimate feats to legitimately up your caster level or attack bonus, or any other optimization, has been the norm, not the exception.
Further, you may consider attempting to make Ultimate Magus playable, instead of uber-suck, to be BadWrongFun, but I'd prefer it, personally, if you didnt insult people and throw terms like "Rulemonkeys" around, in the rules forum. If you dont like the rules, or whatever, thats your thing, but dont insult others, IN the rules forum, for using the RAW.
RigaMortus2 said:
Yep assuming of course the class and spell are not being taken for a 1 level dip. Fighter 19/Duskblade 1 w/ Wraithstrike once a day can be powerful indeed....or combined with a Warblade......or a Psionic Class...
etc....etc.....point still stands, feat is poorly written and not balanced against the standing tradition of rules.
EyeontheMountain
First Post
NilesB said:
Then you have a totally different view of the feat. And your view at least doubles, and probably triples its power.
Not a bad character at all, on par or above most of the other character examples they use. But we are not talking about thier version, but an optimal one. If you want to compare theirs, obviously your trick does not work, as the example entered the class the way it wa intended to. I can make one far far better. And the version I make can be just as effective as one you can ceate in 95% of adventuring situations, unless you insist on only counting the highest level spell, and I can do it without any dubious interpretations of the rules.
EyeontheMountain
First Post
Seeten said:
Who exactly did I insult? Or are you stepping up volunteering to be insulted?
Legitimate is in the eye of the beholder, especially in the case of this feat. There have been thread upon thread upon thread arguing this point, and so far I have not seen any consensus at all, so your 'legitimate' claim cannot be accepted as 100% certain.
Also, RAW does not really exist, it is interpreted through each person's view. Don't use it as a defense for your opinion.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Quick idea for Netheril campaign
D&D 5E (2024)
Improved War Magic rules interpretation
